Advertisement

Advertisement

Why marrying ecology and economics is essential

Acknowledging the economic value of ecosystem services helps drive home that we are part of nature and have a duty to live responsibly

OIKOS. The Greek word for home is the root of both “ecology” and “economics”. But the two subjects parted ways long ago, and for much of the 20th century their students paid little heed to each other. In the 21st, however, it is obvious that they are inextricably linked. Ecological economics is now securely on the curriculum at universities around the world.

Conservationists have learned that support is easier to garner when fuzzy sentiments are backed up with hard numbers: talking up the value of “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” has proved effective in areas such as forestry and flood protection.

But ecological economics is still more of an academic pursuit than a practical one. Attention has recently turned to “rewilding” – returning formerly native flora and fauna to their prior range. The idea is popular, particularly among urbanites who thrill to the idea of a wilder countryside.

How to strike a balance? The emotional argument revolves around competing ideas of what is “natural”. That is a question of timescale: many countryside icons are alien if you go back far enough, from rabbits and fluffy white sheep to the grassy hills they graze on. And their presence often depends on subsidies.

The economic argument centres on the costs of dead livestock and unproductive land. Those are fair concerns, but the other side of the cost-benefit equation is often missing. For example, predators keep down deer and fox numbers; and beavers can protect farmland and boost fisheries.

We have a duty to fix battered ecosystems. But if we are to make progress, we must consider ecology and economics as two sides of the same coin. After all, we need both to make a home.

(Image: Ignacio Yufera/FLPA/Minden)

This article appeared in print under the headline “Out of the wilderness”